Jeanne Tarrant1 , Joshua Weeber2 , Domitilla C. Raimondo3 , Dewidine van Der Colff3 , Shae-Lynn E. Hendricks3 , Maphale S. Monyeki3

1. Anura Africa/Amphibian Specialist Group

2. Endangered Wildlife Trust

3. South African National Biodiversity Institute

Published

November 18, 2025


Hyperolius pickersgilli, a species that has received extensive collaborative conservation focus over the last decade in South Africa. These efforts have resulted in its protection level improving from poorly protected in 2018 to moderately protected in 2025. (© Tyrone Ping)
22%
of 135 taxa assessed are
Threatened
73%
of 133 assessed taxa are
Well Protected
~80%
of threatened amphibians are considered
under-protected

Key findings

  • In the current assessment, 135 taxa have been evaluated, and 82 (61%) of these species are endemic or near-endemic to South Africa, Eswatini, and Lesotho.

  • Twenty-two percent of assessed amphibians (30 species) are threatened with extinction, with another 10% (13) assessed as Near Threatened.

  • Thirty-nine percent of South Africa’s endemic amphibians are threatened with extinction, placing full responsibility for their protection on South Africa.

  • Amphibians are becoming increasingly threatened with extinction. Although only three species have experienced a genuine increase in threat status; many species are still experiencing ongoing pressures.

  • The main pressures causing population declines are invasive and other problematic species, impacting 83% of threatened species. Impacts range from infectious diseases to drying out and replacement of habitat by invasive alien plants. This is followed by habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural activities (72%) and natural system modification (69%) related to, for example, wetland drainage, overgrazing, and inappropriate fire cycles. Recognized as the most important emerging threat globally, climate change impacts are also becoming an important driver of amphibian declines in South Africa affecting nearly half of threatened species, although the impacts of this threat are challenging to quantify.

  • A large proportion of amphibians are assessed as Well Protected (73%) within the South African Protected Area Network; however, 11% (15) of amphibians are Not Protected. Of the 29 threatened species, 79% are considered under-protected (Moderately Protected, Poorly Protected or Not Protected). Meaning that our most threatened species require improved protection, and most protected areas do not consider amphibians in their management activities

  • Almost 50% (17) of South Africa’s threatened species occur in the Western Cape province. Given the high endemicity within this province, and the disproportional number of endemic species that are threatened, this spatial pattern is not surprising. The Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces support four and six threatened species, respectively.

Figure 1. Density of threatened amphibian species (10 x 10 km grid), based on the distribution data of all threatened amphibian species.

Protection level

The protection level assessment was conducted for 133 of South Africa’s 135 described amphibian species. Two peripheral taxa with less than 5% of their distribution in South Africa were excluded from the analysis. Protection level (PL) categories include ‘Poorly Protected’, ‘Moderately Protected’, ‘Not Protected’ and ‘Well Protected’. Protection levels were calculated for amphibians by intersecting amphibian occurrence records with the protected area spatial layer, and calculating the area required to protect a target population of 10 000 individuals. Protection levels were also adjusted based on the management effectiveness of protected areas. For further details on the method used to conduct this assessment see here.

Figure 6. Protection level for amphibians was assessed for 133 taxa. Analysis excluded peripheral taxa (those with less than 5% of distribution range occurring in South Africa); (A) shows the protection level for all taxa; (B) shows the protection level for South African endemics.

Overall, the 2025 PL was higher than in 2016. While close to 72% of amphibians are considered Well Protected, 22% are Poorly or Not Protected. Species-specific management within protected areas is generally lacking for amphibians, with7% (9 species) assessed as less well protected once Protected Area management effectiveness are taken into account. For the 75 endemic amphibians assessed, 57% are Well Protected, 17% (13 species) are Not Protected, and a further 17% (13 species) are Poorly Protected. Sixteen highly threatened (CR and EN) species are under-protected (including Not Protected, Poorly Protected and Moderately Protected).

Micro Frog

The mosaic of wetland habitat at the Nuwejaars Wetlands Special Management Area where the micro frog (Microbatrachella capensis) was discovered in 2021. Alien clearing efforts and population density estimates are currently underway using (M. capensis) as a management target. (© Keir Lynch Bionerds)

Nine species have had improvements in their protection level, from Poorly Protected to Moderately Protected (8 species) or Well Protected (1 species). Examples of threatened species that have benefitted from improved protection include the Endangered Micro Frog (Microbatrachella capensis), Pickersgill’s Reed Frog (Hyperolius pickersgilli), and the Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli). In the case of H. pickersgilli, an additional 16 sites have been confirmed for the species since 2017, with several of these occurring within protected areas8.

Habitat protection gains have been a key outcome of the coordination of the Biodiversity Management Plan for this species, with several sites (totalling 127 hectares) being declared through the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme, as well as improved management and wetland health for these, and existing protected areas8. For M. capensis, confirmation of the species in the Nuwejaars Wetlands Special Management Area in 2021, which is now being managed with the frog as a management target, has resulted in both an expansion of the species’ range with Protected Areas, as well as improved management effectiveness scores from fair to good. It is important to recognize the contribution that Biodiversity Stewardship and conservation servitudes (or OECMs) makes to the protected area estate through agreements with landowners for targeting unprotected populations of species.

Micro Frog

The previously Critically Endangered micro frog (Microbatrachella capensis), is now listed as Endangered due to its discovery at a new locality, it has also changed protection status from Poorly Protected to Moderately Protected resulting in a range extension © Alouise Lynch Bionerds

Species recovery

As part of the Red List process for southern Africa, the Amphibian Ark (AArk) joined the expert workshop and worked with coordinators to produce a Conservation Needs Assessment (CNA) for threatened South African amphibian species9. This used a process developed by AArk to determine which species have the most urgent conservation needs, based on action plans that combine in situ and ex situ actions, as appropriate. Six South African species were identified for ex situ conservation actions, including ex situ rescue (n = 5) and ex situ research (n = 1). Due to their level of threat, the five species recommended for ex situ rescue are also recommended for biobanking. Twenty-five species were recommended for in situ conservation, and 34 species are recommended for in situ research, while 15 species were identified for conservation education programs.

In addition, subsequent work to identify species requiring urgent recovery under Target 4 of the Global Biodiversity Framework resulted in 10 species being prioritized. This includes threatened endemic species and those of regional importance that might go extinct even if their habitat is protected. This highlights the limited targeted management of amphibians within protected areas and the need for research on how they respond to management interventions.

South Africa has a relatively proactive community working on amphibian conservation and research, with NGOs, provincial authorities and various universities contributing to building conservation evidence for assessing the effectiveness of conservation interventions and growing the body of knowledge on amphibian taxonomy, behavior and ecology (Table 3). These activities were partially guided by the conservation and research strategy compiled following the 2010 Red List assessments10, demonstrating the value of these processes, with plans in place to update this strategy following the most recent assessments (2025). While progress has been made, amphibian conservation capacity remains overlooked and underfunded compared to other taxa11, and this is particularly pertinent in the African context, with limited resources in general, and the constant need to balance development needs with conservation efforts.

Table 3. List of some of the active recovery projects focused on amphibians across South Africa, led by a range of different organisations.
Contributor Author affiliation/s ORCID number
Oliver Angus
Endangered Wildlife Trust (at the time of assessments)
0000-0002-9791-9480
Adrian John Armstrong
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
0000-0002-6015-9019
Ninda Baptista
Universidade do Porto, Portugal
Francois Stephanus Becker
Gobabeb Research and Training Centre, National Museum of Namibia, University of Cape Town, University of the Witwatersrand
0000-0003-3874-9183
Werner Conradie
Port Elizabeth Museum
0000-0003-0805-9683
Louis Heyns Du Preez
North-West University
0000-0002-3332-6053
James Harvey
Harvey Ecological
Adriaan Jordaan
University of the Western Cape, Iziko South African Museum
0000-0002-0772-0305
Keir Lynch
Anura Africa;Bionerds
0000-0001-6418-2307
John Measey
Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University
0000-0001-9939-7615
Mohlamatsane Mokhatla
University of Pretoria
0000-0001-8090-4592
Nieto Lawrence, J. A.
Anura Africa; University of Johannesburg
0000-0002-5982-5803
Fortunate Mafeta Phaka
North-West University
0000-0003-1833-3156
Darren Pietersen
Endangered Wildlife Trust
0000-0002-7592-8319
Krystal A. Tolley
South African National Biodiversity Institute
0000-0002-7778-1963
Andrew Turner
Cape Nature
0000-0003-1004-5723
Luke Verburgt
Enviro Insight
Che Weldon
North-West University
0000-0001-6716-0787


The example of coordinated conservation action for Pickersgill’s Reed Frog, Hyperolius pickersgilli, provides a good case study of a relatively long-term recovery project in which new knowledge has not only resulted in a threat status reduction (from Critically Endangered in 2010 to Endangered in 2016), but also in concerted efforts to understand and mitigate threats. Stemming from recommendations in the 2011 Strategy for Conservation Research10, a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) was co-developed between key stakeholders and has resulted in many achievements over the past decade, including improvements in knowledge of distribution, genetics and habitat requirements, implementation of monitoring protocols, a captive breeding program, improved habitat protection gains (including a biodiversity offset) and improved habitat management. Research related to the project was published in four peer-reviewed articles and has contributed to seven post-graduate studies. Of the 16 actions identified for the first iteration of the BMP, 17% had been completed, 65% were on track, 6% had minor issues, and a further 12% were still in the planning phase by 2022. Overall, 24 participating organizations have been involved, and implementation of actions resulted in direct employment of over 150 people across institutions as well as stimulating an influx of funding to support actions8. In 2008 the species was known from less than 10 sites; today it is known to occur at almost 40 localities, and multiple breeding wetlands within these localities. The BMP helped strengthen government support as well as improved integration of research outputs into spatial planning and environmental compliance. Interest in the project also generated vast exposure, including television, signage and social media campaigns, reaching thousands of people. While this species’ range continues to be within an area of rapid transformation, this project that has resulted in the species improving its protection level from Poorly Protected in 2018 to Moderately Protected in 2025 demonstrates the successes that can be achieved through collaboration and the commitment of partners from a range of influences.

Release site for captive-bred Pickersgill’s Reed Frog in 2018 when 400 captive-bred individuals were released back into the wild through collaboration between Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Joburg Zoo and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.


Partnering for Pickersgill’s Reed Frog’ - a sign put up at various H. pickersgilli sites explaining the Biodiversity Management Plan.

Knowledge gaps

While amphibians globally remain the most threatened (41%) vertebrates on Earth, basic data on species distribution, population numbers, and ecology remain poor. This is likely partly a result of limited funding, with amphibians receiving the least conservation funding of all major groups globally. Less than 2.8% of funding support is directed to amphibians globally, and this has declined from 4% in the 1990s11. Projects on amphibians are also often focussed on multiple species, limiting investment per species. This differs from projects focussed on other taxa that often receive disproportional support, in some cases even for species that are not threatened (e.g., large mammals). This lack of funding is likely the root cause of several knowledge gaps discussed below and is also linked to inadequate capacity in amphibian research and conservation. These gaps are even more acute outside of South Africa in other parts of the continent.

Similarly, despite major efforts in recent decades to improve knowledge on amphibian declines, there remains a disconnect between research and translation of this into conservation actions. Research priorities identified at the global scale include better understanding of the effects of climate change, community-level drivers of declines, methodological improvements for research and monitoring, genomics, and effects of land-use change. Improved inclusion of under-represented members of the amphibian conservation community was also highlighted4. In South Africa, growing amphibian conservation and research capacity in a way that is representative is critical to addressing capacity gaps and providing skills transfer to young researchers to grow core conservation expertise.

Knowledge gaps related specifically to Red List processes for amphibians include that for most assessments, Criterion B (Geographic range information) is primarily used to inform assessments. Research projects that generate population data, both over time and in response to threats and management interventions will be useful to strengthen amphibian Red List assessments, and in turn to provide baseline data for adaptive conservation strategies. Using the outputs from Red Listing, including recommended conservation and research actions, is critical for prioritizing and guiding future conservation strategies, and such strategies have been found to be effective in improving taxonomy, ecological studies, monitoring, research outputs, and capacity building12.

Approach

Red List Assessment

All previously assessed South African amphibians were reassessed as part of the Southern African Amphibian Red List Project (SAARLP) that commenced in 2023, as part the third global amphibian assessment process, supported by the IUCN Amphibian Specialist Group and Amphibian Red List Authority. 135 species were assessed for publication on the IUCN Red List in 2025 and 2026, including 11 newly described species since 201613. Over 150,000 records were collated for the assessments, including from various institutions and verified citizen science data. Twenty experts representing thirteen organizations contributed to the assessment process.

Protection Level Assessment

The species protection level assessment measures how effectively South Africa’s protected area network safeguards a species. It evaluates progress towards achieving a “persistence target” for each species — the level of protection needed to support long-term population survival. Because persistence depends not only on the area protected but also on the ability of protected areas to reduce pressures that drive population decline, a protected area effectiveness factor is included in the calculation.

Species are classified into four protection categories:

Well Protected — ≥100% of the persistence target met
Moderately Protected — 50–99% of the target met
Poorly Protected — 5–49% of the target met
Not Protected — <5% of the target met

This assessment was applied to 133 amphibian species with the persistence target set at the area required to protect 10 000 individuals.

There are two components included in the protection level assessment:

  1. Representation in protected areas — quantifies how much of the area of suitable habitat required to support the persistence target of 10 000 individuals falls within existing protected areas.

  2. Protected area effectiveness — adjusts for how well pressures that cause species declines such as invasive species, poaching, inappropriate fire regimes etc are mitigated within protected areas.

The degree to which protected areas effectively mitigate threats are scored as:

  • Good, when the protected area is fully effective in protecting the species against major threats;

  • Fair if the protected area provides some mitigation of major threats to species but is not completely effective;

  • Poor if the protected area provides no mitigation of the major threats to the species.

Effectiveness ratings were provided by provincial and national conservation agencies responsible for protected area management as well as taxon experts.

The above analysis was first undertaken for NBA 2018 and was repeated in 2025 using updated species occurrence data based on the 2025 Amphibian Red List Reassessment. A spatial layer of protected areas for 2018 and 2025 representing protected areas that were declared at that time were used for the two time periods. A technical report outlining the full methodology and limitations will be available in February 2026.

Acknowledgement

Coordinated by:

Supported by:

References

1. Borgelt, J. et al. 2022. More than half of data deficient species predicted to be threatened by extinction. Commun Biol 5: 679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03638-9
2. Butchart, S.H.M. et al. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red list indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383
3. Du Preez, L.H. et al. 2025. A new rain frog (anura: Brevicipitidae; breviceps) from the KwaZulu-natal midlands, south africa. African Journal of Herpetology. https://doi.org/10.1080/21564574.2025.2478896
4. Priority research needs to inform amphibian conservation in the anthropocene. 2023. Conservation Science and Practice e12988: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12988
5. Re, wild. 2023. Synchronicity earth, IUCN SSC amphibian specialist group. Re:wild, Texas, USA.
6. Angus, O. et al. 2023. In a rough spot: Declines in arthroleptella rugosa calling densities are explained by invasive pine trees. Austral Ecology48(3: 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13273
7. N., I.U.C. 2025. Threats classification scheme (version 3.3). The IUCN red list of threatened species.
8. Armstrong, A.J. et al. 2025. Collaborating for conservation: The first five years of implementation of the biodiversity management plan for pickersgill’s reed frog, hyperolius pickersgilli’. African Biodiversity & Conservation 55: 7. https://doi.org/10.38201/abc.v55.7
9. Brunner, R. et al. (eds). 2025. Conservation needs assessment workshop report for threatened south african amphibian species 2024. Amphibian Ark.
10. Measey, G.J. (eds). 2011. Ensuring a future for south africa’s frogs: A strategy for conservation research, SANBI biodiversity series 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
11. Guénard, B. 2025. Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported. Proc. Natl Acad.Sci 122: 2412479122.
12. Measey, J. et al. 2019. Has strategic planning made a difference to amphibian conservation research in south africa?’. Bothalia 49: 2428. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v49i1.2428
13. Frost, D.R. 2025. Amphibian species of the world: An online reference. Version 6.2 (date of access). Electronic database accessible at https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.5531/db.vz.0001